Where worker, employed in private household from 1963-1970, was paid in
cash a sum amounting to at least $52 per calendar quarter but individual
who hired worker, supervised her activities, and paid for her services
failed to make wage reports, subsequently contending that since there were
two members of the household and each contributed one-half of the worker's
quarterly earnings (thus reducing the share of each to less than minimum
reportable amount of $50 in cash each calendar quarter from one employer)
no report of wages was required, held, (1) head of household, as employer,
is responsible for reporting total "wages" paid to worker and for payment
of tax incidental thereto; moreover, this obligation exists regardless of
fact that other members of household may have contributed some portion of
such wages; (2) worker is fully insured for retirement insurance benefits
for which she filed application.

R, the worker, born in February 1904, filed application for retirement
insurance benefits in December 1970. Based on her date of birth, 15
"quarters of coverage" (as defined in section 213(a) of Social Security
Act) were required for her to become fully insured for benefit purposes.
Since R's earnings record disclosed that she had no calendar quarters of
coverage, her application for benefits was denied. R then appealed this
determination, contending that during the period 1963 through 1970 she had
been employed in the X household for wages of $1 per hour and that these
wages had amounted to not less than $50 in cash per calendar quarter from
one employer for the years in question. The household consisted of the
owner, X, and her adult son. R was required to perform the usual household
duties of cleaning, laundry (including that of the son), and in the warmer
months she also worked in the yard and garden. R had been engaged by Mrs.
X to perform these services, was always paid by her, and was under her
direct supervision.

In January 1971, Mrs. X executed a statement that for the years 1963
through 1970 she had, by herself, paid R not less than $52 per quarter.
None of the wages had been reported as she was unaware she had to report
them. This statement was later retracted and Mrs. X alleged that she paid
R approximately $26 per quarter and that her son paid the other $26 per
quarter.

The primary issue is whether R may be credited with not less than $50
cash remuneration as an employee performing domestic services in the
private home of her employer for, at least, the 15 calendar quarters
required for her to have a fully insured status so as to become entitled
to retirement insurance benefits. First it will be necessary to establish
the identity of the employer, i.e., whether each individual member of the
household was an employer or whether the employer-employee relationship
existed only between X and R.

Section 202(a) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that every
individual who is a fully insured individual (as defined in section 214(a)
of the Act), has attained age 62, and has filed application for old-age
insurance benefits shall be entitled to them.

Section 209(g) of the Act states, in part, that the term "wages" shall
not include: "(2) Cash remuneration paid by an employer in any calendar
quarter to an employee for domestic service in a private home of the
employer, if the cash remuneration paid in such quarter by the employer to
the employee for such service is less than $50 * * *."

Section 214(a) of the Act provides, in part, that the term "fully insured
individual" means any individual who has not less than one quarter of
coverage, whenever acquired, for each calendar year elapsing after 1950
and before the year in which he attained the age of 65 or, in the case of
a woman, attained age 62.

It is clear from the evidence that R did in fact receive at least $52 in
cash per quarter from 1963 through 1970 for services performed in the X
household and on the surrounding grounds. All of the work done at the same
location and under the immediate direction and supervision of Mrs. X, who
also paid the wages at all times. Further, the house and the surrounding
grounds wee owned by Mrs. X, and the household was occupied and operated
as a single housekeeping unit. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude
that she was the employer under the usual common-law rules and that she
paid for R's services out of her own resources, as evidenced by her
unequivocal statement to that effect in January 1971. The ultimate source
of such resources under these circumstances is immaterial. Mrs. X, as the
employer, is responsible for properly reporting such wages and for payment
of the social security contributions incidental thereto.

Accordingly, it is held that on the basis of the "wages" paid her by Mrs.
X, her employer, the worker, R, acquired a fully insured status and is
entitled to the retirement benefits for which she applied.

Important Information:

Other Government Websites:

Follow:

External Link Disclaimer

You are exiting the Social Security Administration's website.

Select OK to proceed.

Disclaimer

The Social Security Administration (SSA) website contains links to websites not affiliated with the United States government. These may include State and Local governmental agencies, international agencies, and private entities.

SSA cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by such websites. If we provide a link to such a website, this does not constitute an endorsement by SSA or any of its employees of the information or products presented on the non-SSA website.

Also, such websites are not within our control and may not follow the same privacy, security or accessibility policies. Once you visit such a website, you are subject to the policies of that site.